GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives
Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-04 > 1176680338
From: James Heald <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Malaspina et al (2001)'s Cohens -- an answer ?
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 00:38:58 +0100
References: <461F9F20.9010003@comcast.net> <46223AAE.1020802@ucl.ac.uk><462293CF.5090608@sbcglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <462293CF.5090608@sbcglobal.net>
Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:
>
> There were other refinements of the Cohanim Y-DNA structure that were
> published 18 months later by Thomas et al (1998), also published in
> Nature. However, I haven't figured out Y-DNA structure yet in terms of
> the current Y-DNA Tree. If any has please respond too.
> Al
>
The Wikipedia article now organises the data, and has links to the
original papers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron
The haplogroup numbers from Thomas et al (1998) count the number
"xDE,PR" -- ie not in Hgs D, E, P, Q, R
Behar et al (2003) have a more detailed breakdown of Cohanim numbers by
haplotype, from a slightly enlarged sample.
The article doesn't include Bonnie's wonderful breakthrough yet, which -
with luck - means we may be getting close to finally getting the story
sorted out!
This thread:
| Re: [DNA] Malaspina et al (2001)'s Cohens -- an answer ? by James Heald <> |